Find a Lawyer

ABDUL SATTAR DADABHOY versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU

ection Section 9 (c) recommends Chairman, National Accountability Bureau to close investigation against accused - Check and Balance - Scope of the Isla legislature has deliberately and consciously determined that investigation under National Accountability Ordinance 1999 The Chairman should not have the power to close. Be relentless, so the Accountability Court made amendments to Section 9 (c) under the rules requiring the approval of the Chairman NAB - stating that the amendment would prevent any possible misconduct by the Chairman, NAB and Public confidence will increase. Another look at the decision before the chairman NAB's approval, [p 340] b

PLD 2017 Sindh 331

Before Irfan Saadat Khan and Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, JJ

ABDUL SATTAR DADABHOY and 2 others—Petitioners

versus

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and 2 others—Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.D-3251 of 2016, decided on 5th October, 2016.

(a) Criminal trial—

—Inquiry converted into investigation—Effect—Once an inquiry was converted into an investigation it could be said that at least some material was available, which suggested that offence had been committed, [p. 340] A

(b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(c)—Recommendation of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau for closure of investigation against accused—Check and balance—Scope—Legislature had deliberately and consciously determined that the Chairman’s power to close an investigation under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 should not be unbridled, thus amendments were made to S.9(c) in terms of the requirement of the approval of the Chairman NAB by the Accountability Court—Said amendment would prevent any potential abuse of office by the Chairman, NAB and increase public confidence when court had a second look albeit cursory at the decision of the Chairman NAB before granting its approval, [p. 340] B

(c) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(c)—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A— Recommendation of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau for closure of investigation against accused—Binding effect—Role of Accountability Court under S.9(c) of the Ordinance while acting as a check and balance on the Chairman’s power to close an investigation was to review all the material placed before him albeit in a cursory manner—After applying judicial mind as envisaged under S.24-A General Clauses Act 1897, the court had to pass an order with reasons regarding approval of the closure or otherwise—Accountability Court could make recommendations of further avenues of inquiry— Recommendations of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau had no binding effect on Accountability Court, [p. 340] C

(d) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(c)—Recommendation of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau for closure of investigation against accused—Chairman, NAB could not sit on the decision of the Accountability Court if his application to close the investigation had not been approved—

Chairman would either follow up immediately on the recommendations made in the order of the Court or move for judicial review, [p. 341] D

(e) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(c)—Recommendation of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau for closure of investigation against accused—If the Accountability Court, on the first application of the Chairman declined the approval to closure of investigation after giving reasons and Chairman NAB chose to address said reasons/recommendations, Chairman was again to apply for closure of investigation and the matter was to be decided by the Judge Accountability Court other than the one who decided first application, [p. 342] E

(f) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(c)—Recommendation of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau for closure of investigation against accused—Grounds for refusing recommendation for closure of investigation—Scope— Accountability Court was not to act as a post office or rubber stamp on the decision of Chairman, NAB to close the investigation—Intention of legislature was that Accountability Court was to play a meaningful role in determining as to whether the decision of the Chairman required reconsideration by the collection of additional evidence or rethinking of the evidence already collected or that legitimate lines of inquiry had been followed—Accountability Court could disagree with the recommendation and remand the matter for reconsideration, [p. 342] F

(g) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

-—S. 31(b)—Withdrawal of case by Prosecutor General Accountability-Scope—Prosecutor General must set out reasons for seeking withdrawal—Court could reject, if the reasons were completely unjustified, [p. 343] G.

(h) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)—

—S. 9(c)—Recommendation of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau for closure of investigation against accused—Accountability Court had passed a speaking order giving solid reasons for not approving the application for closure of the investigation carried out by the Chairman, NAB—Accountability Court, however, had failed to consider as to whether after investigation by the NAB, the matter was a case of acheating the public at large ” as per NAB’s own SOP so as to come within the purview of National Accountability Ordinance; whether in fact, present case was a civil case so as to be hit by Supreme Court judgment in Raft Haji Usman v. Chairman NAB 2015 SCMR 1575 and did not fall within the purview of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999—Impugned order was set aside and the application for closure of investigation was remanded -n the High Court to the Accountability Court to rehear the same taking into consideration specified additional two issues, [p. 346] H

Asim Iqbal for Petitioners.

Amjad Ali Shah, DPGA NAB, Muhammad Altaf, ADPGA NAB along with Sabih Rafay, Asstt. Director Investigation NAB for Respondents.

Syed Mahmood Alam Rizvi: Amicus Curiae

Dates of hearing: 16th August and 22nd September, 2016.

property advocates from Kallur Kot lawyer